General > General Technical Chat
Youtube/Google is evil, time to fight back
<< < (36/61) > >>
Nominal Animal:
No, the true problem is that we are assigning huge importance in the perceived emotive content of words, and as a result, require global control of such "bad words", making free speech impossible and unattainable.

If we allow individual words to become weapons, we force ourselves to live in a warzone, a minefield.  Language is the best tool we have to interact with each other, and it is frail and error-prone enough already; any attempt to weaponize it further horrifies me.

I so wish Fran had taken a different approach in her video.  Instead of pointing out "transvestite" is a slur, I wish she had pointed out that "transvestite" and "transgender" are completely different things, and that people confusing the two shows how people really do not understand the underlying things at all; things that are very close to the core of many people, and thus rather important.  And, then, that many consider "transvestite" a slur –– could be because so many people misuse the terms –– and prefer the term "cross-dresser" instead.  (Perhaps point out that cross-dressing has a rather long history, and isn't necessarily coupled with sexuality at all.)  And then described her own experience to whatever degree she finds necessary; but most importantly, showing that it is a natural part of her and her history, not something to be ashamed about or scared of having others know.

Why do I wish that?  Because you cannot achieve lasting change by telling people they are evil if they use 'slurs'.  You need to first show there is nothing dark or wrong in the terms themselves, and then explain what they actually mean.  Instead of priming them as mines, you need to defuse them.

As an example, consider the following.  Many human societies have tales of evil beings living in water, and dragging unwary children to their death.  These are often used by parents as an easy way to keep their children from going into the water without adult supervision.  However, such tales also mean a lot of children don't want to learn to swim, because of the fear.  The end result is that using such tales with the intent of protecting children, can actually result in more child deaths due drowning.  Using such tales –– or saying that a specific word is a slur and anyone using it should be excluded from polite society –– causes more harm than good.
It is easy, and therefore very enticing as a tool to make one feel safer, but in the end, it does more harm than good, overall.

If human languages are forced to become a primed minefield, then I do sincirely believe that letting those minefields blow up on their primers' faces as early as possible is the least harmful outcome of the entire mess.
Zero999:

--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 03, 2022, 07:55:43 am ---No, the true problem is that we are assigning huge importance in the perceived emotive content of words, and as a result, require global control of such "bad words", making free speech impossible and unattainable.

If we allow individual words to become weapons, we force ourselves to live in a warzone, a minefield.  Language is the best tool we have to interact with each other, and it is frail and error-prone enough already; any attempt to weaponize it further horrifies me.

I so wish Fran had taken a different approach in her video.  Instead of pointing out "transvestite" is a slur, I wish she had pointed out that "transvestite" and "transgender" are completely different things, and that people confusing the two shows how people really do not understand the underlying things at all; things that are very close to the core of many people, and thus rather important.  And, then, that many consider "transvestite" a slur –– could be because so many people misuse the terms –– and prefer the term "cross-dresser" instead.  (Perhaps point out that cross-dressing has a rather long history, and isn't necessarily coupled with sexuality at all.)  And then described her own experience to whatever degree she finds necessary; but most importantly, showing that it is a natural part of her and her history, not something to be ashamed about or scared of having others know.

Why do I wish that?  Because you cannot achieve lasting change by telling people they are evil if they use 'slurs'.  You need to first show there is nothing dark or wrong in the terms themselves, and then explain what they actually mean.  Instead of priming them as mines, you need to defuse them.

As an example, consider the following.  Many human societies have tales of evil beings living in water, and dragging unwary children to their death.  These are often used by parents as an easy way to keep their children from going into the water without adult supervision.  However, such tales also mean a lot of children don't want to learn to swim, because of the fear.  The end result is that using such tales with the intent of protecting children, can actually result in more child deaths due drowning.  Using such tales –– or saying that a specific word is a slur and anyone using it should be excluded from polite society –– causes more harm than good.
It is easy, and therefore very enticing as a tool to make one feel safer, but in the end, it does more harm than good, overall.

If human languages are forced to become a primed minefield, then I do sincirely believe that letting those minefields blow up on their primers' faces as early as possible is the least harmful outcome of the entire mess.

--- End quote ---
What I was alluding to was that the confusion between transgender and cross-dressing is an important one, with real world implications.

What happens if Fran does something illegal, as a result of money troubles? Which prison does she go do? She's biologically male, so perhaps a male prison? The problem is she would be more vulnerable to being bullied and sexually assaulted, so perhaps a female prison is more appropriate. That's fine, but then what about male sex offender who claims he's trans, dresses as a women and sexually assaults women in female toilets? If the law is applied equally, then he would be sent to a female prison, where he can have a rape fest.

The obvious solution to the above is to individually assess prisoners, taking into account psychological reports and what treatment/surgery he or she has had. The problem is this doesn't happen. There have been instances of men who claim to be women, in female prisons assaulting female prisoners.

The points you raise above, are part of the problem. If certain words are too offensive, then it's not possible to debate the matter rationally.
wraper:

--- Quote from: Zero999 on May 03, 2022, 08:26:20 am ---That's fine, but then what about male sex offender who claims he's trans, dresses as a women and sexually assaults women in female toilets? If the law is applied equally, then he would be sent to a female prison, where he can have a rape fest.

--- End quote ---
Already happened in UK. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10406351/I-sexually-assaulted-transgender-rapist-womens-jail.html
Nominal Animal:

--- Quote from: Zero999 on May 03, 2022, 08:26:20 am ---What I was alluding to was that the confusion between transgender and cross-dressing is an important one, with real world implications.

--- End quote ---
True, and I do agree.  I just think that defusing that via a positive explanation would have been a much better approach.  As it is, primarily pointing out "transvestite" is considered a slur, and secondarily pointing out the two are completely different things, might help Fran herself, but overall, it is pushing the way us humans communicate with each other in a harmful direction.


--- Quote from: Zero999 on May 03, 2022, 08:26:20 am ---The obvious solution to the above is to individually assess prisoners
--- End quote ---
Yes!

I've mentioned before, that some of my own faults are such that I just do not perceive the kind of things that others do.  For example, I have absolutely no "gaydar".  Several times, I've been asked whether someone I interacted with was male or female, and I realized I didn't notice.  Yes, it does mean I do some real silly goofs every now and then, but in face-to-face discussion it hasn't been a problem: I am easy to read, and try hard to honestly admit my errors; me stammering an apology with my face firetruck red when my gaffes are pointed out to me, seems to almost always defuse the situation through friendly laughter.  Online, it is a problem.

To me, everyone I meet and interact is an individual first.  Their gender and opinions are just attributes that matter much less to me than their interaction with me and others.  By requiring more complex patterns of social interaction – like remembering what words to use with which individual, without any internally consistent logic – I will be excluded from interactions.  I already see online how groups are becoming more insular, deliberately avoiding communicating with outside the group to keep themselves safe and reduce the cognitive load of social interactions.  This reduces interactions, and is definitely not good.

The next time you try to report a bug or suggest a patch to some software project, note who and how you are responded to.  It is no longer like to a peer (like it used to be when the web was new), but more like to a possible IED.  It is safer to mark, ignore and avoid, than to interact.
tooki:

--- Quote from: Zero999 on April 25, 2022, 10:16:52 am ---I didn't know Big Clive is gay and I don't care. I watch Fran's videos and couldn't give a toss about he being trans.

The problem is there is extremist LGBT content is allowed, if not even encouraged by social media.

--- End quote ---
I feel the need to point out that this is absolutely untrue.


--- Quote from: Zero999 on April 25, 2022, 10:16:52 am ---Age inappropriate content is being pushed onto children.

--- End quote ---
If by that you mean “depictions of LGBT people doing the same things cis/hetero people do, like having families and buying groceries”, then yes.


--- Quote from: Zero999 on April 25, 2022, 10:16:52 am ---I'm all for teaching children to be tolerant of minorities, but despise radical trans activists who glorify gender dysphoria.

--- End quote ---
No, what they’re saying is to be accepting of those who suspect they may have gender dysphoria.


--- Quote from: Zero999 on April 25, 2022, 10:16:52 am --- There have been too many cases of vulnerable children and adolescents who have been convinced they're trans by manipulative people and undergone life changing medical treatments as a result.
--- End quote ---
I’ve never heard of even one such case. What there have been is cases where children who were either intersex or whose privates had been damaged were then, upon doctor’s advice, raised as the opposite sex, with disastrous results.

But nobody is pushing gender reassignment on people who didn’t want it. This is precisely why gender reassignment requires extensive, long-term psychological evaluation first. It’s also why using hormone blockers to delay puberty is incredibly smart: you can delay the development of gender-specific physiology until the individual is absolutely certain of what they are.


--- Quote from: Zero999 on April 25, 2022, 10:16:52 am --- Many trans activists aren't really transgender, but male transvestites, who want to use women's spaces.
--- End quote ---
Complete nonsense.


--- Quote from: Zero999 on April 25, 2022, 10:16:52 am --- A women was raped in hospital recently, because a man who identified as female was allowed on a women's ward.
--- End quote ---

There’s a better word for that man: sexual predator. But being a predator has little to do with trans issues, and a whole lot to do with predation issues.

It’s also entirely possible, if rare, for both to be the true simultaneously — a pre-op trans woman can still be a sexual predator.

But let’s not lose sight of the fact that the number of cases of predatory men pretending to be trans women in order to gain access to victims is vanishingly small. In contrast, the number of trans women murdered every single year is shocking. And that’s in addition to all the other abuses and indignities they have to endure on a daily basis.

It’s absolutely abhorrent to throw all trans women under the bus to prevent a nearly nonexistent threat. Not to mention that it’s categorically impossible to protect women from predators at all times. If the predators can’t gain access one way, they’ll just find some other way to find victims, unfortunately.


--- Quote from: Zero999 on April 25, 2022, 10:16:52 am ---What's worse is the police didn't believe her, because the hospital staff have been told to deny there was a man on the ward. I hope the policy is changed and the staff are prosecuted for wasting police time and perverting the course of justice: following orders is no defense!
--- End quote ---
How would you propose to even do this? It’s the same problem as the anti-trans bathroom bills in some US states: how do you enforce it? Genitalia inspections for everyone? Or just the ones who don’t look feminine enough? (We already have had cases of tomboyish cisgender women having the cops called on them for trying to use the ladies’ room.)

The correct thing to do is to act on predatory behavior, rather than impose draconian rules that single-out an already vulnerable population, all to protect against a threat that is 99.999% imaginary.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod